Comet is a resumable workflow and skill platform for coding tasks, covering requirements work as well as skill creation, evaluation, and release. It supports separate Native and Classic workflows and can coordinate implementation and verification across isolated Git worktrees. The catalogue contains skills and instructions that implement Comet-related workflows.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add rpamis/comet --skill comet-classic-039-hotfixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rpamis/cometWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-hotfix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-hotfix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-hotfix/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-hotfix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/rpamis/comet/comet-classic-039-hotfix.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 130 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00040 | $0.02313 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.01156 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00463 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
comet-hotfix scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 205 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Comet Preset Path: Hotfix
Quick bug fix workflow: open → build → verify → archive. Skip brainstorming and full plan, applicable for behavior fixes not involving new capability design.
Applicable conditions (all must be met):
- Fix bugs in existing functionality, no new capability
- No interface changes or architecture adjustments
- Change scope is predictable (usually ≤ 2 files)
Not applicable: If fix process discovers need for architecture adjustments, should upgrade to full /comet workflow.
Process (preset workflow, 6 steps)
0. Output Language Constraint
Streamlined OpenSpec artifacts must use the language of the user request that triggered this workflow.
Execution chain: open → build → root cause check → verify → archive. Hotfix provides default decisions for each phase: streamlined open, direct build, root cause confirmation, scale-based verification, and final archive confirmation after verification passes.
Locate Comet scripts before starting:
COMET_ENV="${COMET_ENV:-$(find . "$HOME"/.*/skills "$HOME/.config" "$HOME/.gemini" -path '*/comet/scripts/comet-env.sh' -type f -print -quit 2>/dev/null)}"
if [ -z "$COMET_ENV" ]; then
echo "ERROR: comet-env.sh not found. Ensure the comet skill is installed." >&2
return 1
fi
. "$COMET_ENV"
1. Quick Open (preset open)
Reuse Comet open capability to create change, but use hotfix defaults: do not execute openspec-explore long exploration, directly enter streamlined change creation.
Immediately execute: Use the Skill tool to load the openspec-new-change skill. Skipping this step is prohibited.
After the skill loads, follow its guidance to create streamlined artifacts:
proposal.md— problem description + root cause analysis + fix goal (no solution comparison needed)design.md— fix solution (one is enough, no multi-solution comparison needed)tasks.md— fix task list- No delta spec needed (unless fix changes existing spec acceptance scenarios)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 205 lines · 40 tokens per session scan A 9f323d2e6013
comet-hotfix is a skill published in the GitHub repository rpamis/comet (2,988 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 40 tokens to every session and 2,313 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
issue-analyze
GitHub Issue and PR review thread deep analysis with Codex blind verdict. Use when: analyzing issue root cause, classifying problems, investigation planning, triaging PR review comments for actionability. Not for: fixing bugs (use bug-fix), code exploration (use code-explore). Output: classified analysis + verdict…
code-explore
Pure Claude code investigation. Use when: tracing execution paths, understanding architecture, diagnosing issues. Not for: dual-perspective review (use code-investigate), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: analysis report with findings.
debug
Interactive debugging workflow with hypothesis-driven probe loop. Use when: unknown bugs, script errors, silent failures, troubleshooting. Not for: known bugs (use bug-fix), GitHub issue analysis (use issue-analyze), code understanding (use code-explore). Output: debug report with probe journal + root cause + fix.
code-investigate
Dual-perspective code investigation. Use when: deep code analysis needing both Claude and Codex perspectives. Not for: quick exploration (use code-explore), code review (use codex-code-review). Output: integrated findings from dual analysis.
bug-fix
Bug fix workflow. Use when: fixing bugs, resolving issues, regression fixes. Not for: new features (use feature-dev), understanding code (use code-explore). Output: fix + regression test + review gate.
git-investigate
Git history investigation. Use when: tracking code changes, finding where bugs were introduced, root cause analysis. Not for: code exploration (use code-explore), issue analysis (use issue-analyze). Output: history trace + root cause report.